Internet DRAFT - draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces
draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces
Network Working Group J. Gould
Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
Intended status: Best Current Practice M. Casanova
Expires: March 27, 2020 SWITCH
September 24, 2019
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces
draft-gould-casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces-02
Abstract
The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in RFC 5730,
includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs.
How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
in the response when the client does not support the required service
namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An
unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of RFC
5730 poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the server
prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client needs
to be capable of processing all poll messages. This document defines
an operational practice that enables the server to return information
associated with unhandled namespace URIs that is compliant with the
negotiated services defined in RFC 5730.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 27, 2020.
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Unhandled Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data . . . . . 4
3.1. Unhandled Object-Level Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Unhandled Command-Response Extension . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Usage with General EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in [RFC5730],
includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs.
How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
in the response when the client does not support the required service
namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An
unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of
[RFC5730] poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the
server prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
needs to be capable of processing all poll messages. An unhandled
namespace is an issue also for general EPP responses when the server
has information that it cannot return to the client due to the
client's supported services. The server should be able to return
unhandled namespace information that the client can process later.
This document defines an operational practice that enables the server
to return information associated with unhandled namespace URIs that
is compliant with the negotiated services defined in [RFC5730].
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
XML is case sensitive. Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications
and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the
character case presented in order to develop a conforming
implementation.
In examples, "S:" represents lines returned by a protocol server.
Indentation and white space in examples are provided only to
illustrate element relationships and are not a REQUIRED feature of
this protocol.
The examples reference XML namespace prefixes that are used for the
associated XML namespaces. Implementations MUST NOT depend on the
example XML namespaces and instead employ a proper namespace-aware
XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
The example namespace prefixes used and their associated XML
namespaces include:
"changePoll": urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0
"domain": urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0
"secDNS": urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1
In the template example XML, placeholder content is represented by
the following variables:
"[NAMESPACE-XML]": XML content associated with a login service
namespace URI. An example is the <domain:infData> element
content in [RFC5731].
"[NAMESPACE-URI]": XML namespace URI associated with the [NAMESPACE-
XML] XML content. An example is "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-
1.0" in [RFC5731].
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
2. Unhandled Namespaces
An Unhandled Namespace is an XML namespace that is associated with a
response extension that is not included in the client-specified EPP
login services of [RFC5730]. The EPP login services consists of the
set of XML namespace URIs included in the <objURI> or <extURI>
elements of the [RFC5730] EPP <login> command. The services
supported by the server are included in the <objURI> and <extURI>
elements of the [RFC5730] EPP <greeting>, which should be a superset
of the login services included in the EPP <login> command. A server
may have information associated with a specific namespace that it
needs to return in the response to a client. The unhandled
namespaces problem exists when the server has information, that it
needs to return to the client, that is not supported by the client
based on the negotiated EPP <login> command services.
3. Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data
When a server has data to return to the client, that the client does
not support based on the login services, the server MAY return a
successful response, with the data for each unsupported namespace
moved into an [RFC5730] <extValue> element. The unhandled namespace
will not cause an error response, but the unhandled namespace data
will instead be moved to an <extValue> element, along with a reason
why the unhandled namespace data could not be included in the
appropriate location of the response. The <extValue> element XML
will not be processed by the XML processor. The <extValue> element
contains the following child elements:
<value>: Contains a child-element with the unhandled namespace XML.
The XML namespace and namespace prefix of the child element MUST
be defined, which MAY be defined in the <value> element or in the
the child element. XML processing of the <value> element is
disabled in [RFC5730], so the information can safely be returned
in the <value> element.
<reason>: A formatted human-readable message that indicates the
reason the unhandled namespace data was not returned in the
appropriate location of the response. The formatted reason
SHOULD follow the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) grammar
[RFC5234] format: NAMESPACE-URI "not in login services", where
NAMESPACE-URI is the unhandled XML namespace like
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0" for [RFC5731].
This document supports handling of unsupported namespaces for
[RFC3735] object-level extensions and command-response extensions.
This document does not support [RFC3735] protocol-level extensions or
authentication information extensions. Refer to the following
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
sections on how to handle an unsupported object-level extension
namespace or an unsupported command-response extension namespace.
3.1. Unhandled Object-Level Extension
An object-level extension in [RFC5730] is a child element of the
<resData> element. If the client does not handle the namespace of
the object-level extension, then the <resData> element is removed and
its object-level extension child element is moved into a [RFC5730]
<extValue> <value> element, with the namespace URI included in the
corresponding <extValue> <reason> element. The response becomes a
general EPP response without the <resData> element.
Template response for a supported object-level extension. The
[NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the object-level extension XML.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: [NAMESPACE-XML]
S: </resData>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
Template unhandled namespace response for an unsupported object-level
extension. The [NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the object-level
extension XML and the [NAMESPACE-URI] variable represents the object-
level extension XML namespace URI.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: [NAMESPACE-XML]
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: [NAMESPACE-URI] not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
The EPP response is converted from an object response to a general
EPP response by the server when the client does not support the
object-level extension namespace URI. Below is example of converting
the <transfer> query response example in [RFC5730] to an unhandled
namespace response.
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
[RFC5730] example <transfer> query response converted into an
unhandled namespace response.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: <domain:trnData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
S: <domain:trStatus>pending</domain:trStatus>
S: <domain:reID>ClientX</domain:reID>
S: <domain:reDate>2000-06-06T22:00:00.0Z</domain:reDate>
S: <domain:acID>ClientY</domain:acID>
S: <domain:acDate>2000-06-11T22:00:00.0Z</domain:acDate>
S: <domain:exDate>2002-09-08T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
S: </domain:trnData>
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
3.2. Unhandled Command-Response Extension
A command-response extension in [RFC5730] is a child element of the
<extension> element. If the client does not handle the namespace of
the command-response extension, the command-response child element is
moved into a [RFC5730] <extValue> <value> element, with the namespace
URI included in the corresponding <extValue> <reason> element. If
after moving the command-response child element there are no
additional command-response child elements, the <extension> element
MUST be removed.
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
Template response for a supported command-response extension. The
[NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the command-response extension
XML.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <extension>
S: [NAMESPACE-XML]
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Template unhandled namespace response for an unsupported command-
response extension. The [NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the
command-response extension XML and the [NAMESPACE-URI] variable
represents the command-response extension XML namespace URI.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: [NAMESPACE-XML]
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: [NAMESPACE-URI] not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
The EPP response is converted to an unhandled namespace response by
moving the unhandled command-response extension from under the
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
<extension> to an <extValue> element. Below is example of converting
the DS Data Interface <info> response example in [RFC5910] to an
unhandled namespace response.
[RFC5910] DS Data Interface <info> response converted into an
unhandled namespace response.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: <secDNS:infData
S: xmlns:secDNS="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1">
S: <secDNS:dsData>
S: <secDNS:keyTag>12345</secDNS:keyTag>
S: <secDNS:alg>3</secDNS:alg>
S: <secDNS:digestType>1</secDNS:digestType>
S: <secDNS:digest>49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</secDNS:digest>
S: </secDNS:dsData>
S: </secDNS:infData>
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1 not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:infData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
S: <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
S: <domain:status s="ok"/>
S: <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
S: <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:ns>
S: <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.com</domain:hostObj>
S: <domain:hostObj>ns2.example.com</domain:hostObj>
S: </domain:ns>
S: <domain:host>ns1.example.com</domain:host>
S: <domain:host>ns2.example.com</domain:host>
S: <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
S: <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
S: <domain:crDate>1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
S: <domain:upID>ClientX</domain:upID>
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
S: <domain:upDate>1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z</domain:upDate>
S: <domain:exDate>2005-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
S: <domain:trDate>2000-04-08T09:00:00.0Z</domain:trDate>
S: <domain:authInfo>
S: <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
S: </domain:authInfo>
S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
4. Usage with General EPP Responses
The unhandled namespace approach defined in Section 3 MAY be used for
a general EPP response to an EPP command. A general EPP response
includes any non-poll message EPP response. The use of the unhandled
namespace approach for poll message EPP responses is defined in
Section 5. The server MAY exclude the unhandled namespace
information in the general EPP response or MAY include it using the
unhandled namespace approach.
The unhandled namespace approach for general EPP responses SHOULD
only be applicable to command-response extensions, defined in
Section 3.2, since the server SHOULD NOT accept an object-level EPP
command if the client did not include the object-level namespace URI
in the login services. An object-level EPP response extension is
returned when the server successfully executes an object-level EPP
command extension. The server MAY return an unhandled object-level
extension to the client as defined in Section 3.1.
Returning domain name Redemption Grace Period (RGP) data, based on
[RFC3915], provides an example of applying the unhandled namespace
approach for a general EPP response. If the client does not include
the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0" namespace URI in the login
services, and the domain <info> response of a domain name does have
RGP information, the server MAY exclude the <rgp:infData> element
from the EPP response or MAY include it under in the <extValue>
element per Section 3.2.
[RFC5731] domain name <info> response with the unhandled [RFC3915]
<rgp:infData> element included under an <extValue> element:
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: <rgp:infData xmlns:rgp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0">
S: <rgp:rgpStatus s="redemptionPeriod"/>
S: </rgp:infData>
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0 not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:infData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
S: <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
S: <domain:status s="pendingDelete"/>
S: <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
S: <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:ns>
S: <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.com</domain:hostObj>
S: <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.net</domain:hostObj>
S: </domain:ns>
S: <domain:host>ns1.example.com</domain:host>
S: <domain:host>ns2.example.com</domain:host>
S: <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
S: <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
S: <domain:crDate>1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
S: <domain:upID>ClientX</domain:upID>
S: <domain:upDate>1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z</domain:upDate>
S: <domain:exDate>2005-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
S: <domain:trDate>2000-04-08T09:00:00.0Z</domain:trDate>
S: <domain:authInfo>
S: <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
S: </domain:authInfo>
S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
5. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses
The unhandled namespace approach, defined in Section 3, MUST be used
if there is unhandled namespace information included in an EPP <poll>
message response. The server inserts poll messages into the client's
poll queue independent of knowing the supported client login
services, therefore there may be unhandled object-level and command-
response extensions included in a client's poll queue. In [RFC5730],
the <poll> command is used by the client to retrieve and acknowledge
poll messages that have been inserted by the server. The <poll>
message response is an EPP response that includes the <msgQ> element
that provides poll queue meta-data about the message. The unhandled
namespace approach, defined in Section 3, is used for an unhandled
object-level extension and for each of the unhandled command-response
extensions attached to the <poll> message response. The resulting
EPP <poll> message response MAY have either or both the object-level
extension or command-response extensions moved to <extValue>
elements, as defined in Section 3.
The Change Poll Message, as defined in [I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll],
which is an extension of any EPP object, is an example of applying
the unhandled namespace approach for EPP <poll> message responses.
The object that will be used in the examples is a [RFC5731] domain
name object.
[RFC5731] domain name <info> <poll> message response with the
unhandled [I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll] <changePoll:changeData>
element included under an <extValue> element:
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1301">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: <changePoll:changeData
S: xmlns:changePoll="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0"
S: state="after">
S: <changePoll:operation>update</changePoll:operation>
S: <changePoll:date>
S: 2013-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</changePoll:date>
S: <changePoll:svTRID>12345-XYZ</changePoll:svTRID>
S: <changePoll:who>URS Admin</changePoll:who>
S: <changePoll:caseId type="urs">urs123
S: </changePoll:caseId>
S: <changePoll:reason>URS Lock</changePoll:reason>
S: </changePoll:changeData>
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0 not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <msgQ
S: count="15"
S: id="1"
S: >
S: <qDate>2018-08-24T19:21:51.087Z</qDate>
S: <msg>Registry initiated update of domain.</msg>
S: </msgQ>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:infData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name>change-poll.tld</domain:name>
S: <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
S: <domain:status s="serverUpdateProhibited"/>
S: <domain:status s="serverDeleteProhibited"/>
S: <domain:status s="serverTransferProhibited"/>
S: <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
S: <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
S: <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
S: <domain:crDate>2012-05-03T04:00:00.000Z</domain:crDate>
S: <domain:upID>ClientZ</domain:upID>
S: <domain:upDate>2013-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</domain:upDate>
S: <domain:exDate>2014-05-03T04:00:00.000Z</domain:exDate>
S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Unhandled [RFC5731] domain name <info> <poll> message response and
the unhandled [I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll] <changePoll:changeData>
element included under an <extValue> element:
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1301">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg>
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: <domain:infData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name>change-poll.tld</domain:name>
S: <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
S: <domain:status s="serverUpdateProhibited"/>
S: <domain:status s="serverDeleteProhibited"/>
S: <domain:status s="serverTransferProhibited"/>
S: <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
S: <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
S: <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
S: <domain:crDate>2012-05-03T04:00:00.000Z</domain:crDate>
S: <domain:upID>ClientZ</domain:upID>
S: <domain:upDate>2013-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</domain:upDate>
S: <domain:exDate>2014-05-03T04:00:00.000Z</domain:exDate>
S: </domain:infData>
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: <changePoll:changeData
S: xmlns:changePoll="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0"
S: state="after">
S: <changePoll:operation>update</changePoll:operation>
S: <changePoll:date>
S: 2013-11-22T05:00:00.000Z</changePoll:date>
S: <changePoll:svTRID>12345-XYZ</changePoll:svTRID>
S: <changePoll:who>URS Admin</changePoll:who>
S: <changePoll:caseId type="urs">urs123
S: </changePoll:caseId>
S: <changePoll:reason>URS Lock</changePoll:reason>
S: </changePoll:changeData>
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0 not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <msgQ
S: count="15"
S: id="1"
S: >
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
S: <qDate>2018-08-24T19:23:12.822Z</qDate>
S: <msg>Registry initiated update of domain.</msg>
S: </msgQ>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
6. Implementation Status
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication.
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
[RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is
intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not
intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that
other implementations may exist.
According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and
working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this
information as they see fit".
6.1. Verisign EPP SDK
Organization: Verisign Inc.
Name: Verisign EPP SDK
Description: The Verisign EPP SDK includes an implementation of the
unhandled namespaces for the processing of the poll queue messages.
Level of maturity: Development
Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
Licensing: GNU Lesser General Public License
Contact: jgould@verisign.com
URL: https://www.verisign.com/en_US/channel-resources/domain-
registry-products/epp-sdks
6.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process
Organization: SWITCH
Name: Registry of .CH and .LI
Description: SWITCH uses poll messages to inform the registrar about
DNSSEC changes at the registry triggered by CDS records. These poll
messages are enriched with the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-
1.0' and the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1' extension that are
rendered in the poll msg response according to this draft.
Level of maturity: Operational
Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.
Licensing: Proprietary
Contact: martin.casanova@switch.ch
URL: https://www.nic.ch/cds
7. Security Considerations
The document do not provide any security services beyond those
described by EPP [RFC5730] and protocol layers used by EPP. The
security considerations described in these other specifications apply
to this specification as well.
8. Acknowledgements
TBD
9. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-regext-change-poll]
Gould, J. and K. Feher, "Change Poll Extension for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", draft-ietf-
regext-change-poll-12 (work in progress), January 2019.
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3735] Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>.
[RFC3915] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for
the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3915, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3915>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
[RFC5731] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5731>.
[RFC5910] Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS)
Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5910, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5910>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Appendix A. Change History
A.1. Change from 00 to 01
1. Removed xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
reference from examples.
2. removed <extension></extension> block from example.
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft changePoll September 2019
3. added SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process at
Implementation Status
A.2. Change from 01 to 02
1. Minor changes
Authors' Addresses
James Gould
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
US
Email: jgould@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisigninc.com
Martin Casanova
SWITCH
P.O. Box
Zurich, ZH 8021
CH
Email: martin.casanova@switch.ch
URI: http://www.switch.ch
Gould & Casanova Expires March 27, 2020 [Page 18]
